TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Court Procedure Matters
Subscribe to Court Procedure Matters's Posts

The Employee Retention Credit: IRS’s “Risking” Model Faces Legal Challenge

by , and | Apr 24, 2025 | , ,

Case: ERC Today LLC et al. v. John McInelly et al., No. 2:24-cv-03178 (D. Ariz.)

In an April 2025 order, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by two tax preparation firms. The firms sought to halt the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) use of an automated “risk assessment model” that the IRS used to evaluate and disallow claims for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), seeking to restore individualized review of ERC claims.

BACKGROUND ON THE ERC

The ERC was enacted in 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide financial relief to businesses affected by COVID-19 by incentivizing employers to retain employees and rehire displaced workers. The ERC allowed employers that experienced significant disruptions due to government orders or a substantial decline in gross receipts to claim a tax credit equal to a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees. Millions of employers have filed amended employment tax returns (Form 941-X) claiming the credit for periods in 2020 and 2021. Since the enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS has issued roughly $250 billion in ERC.

THE IRS’S MORATORIUM AND AUTOMATED RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL

In September 2023, the IRS instituted a moratorium on processing ERC claims to review its procedures, reduce the backlog of claims, and identify potential fraud. Before the moratorium, all ERC claims received individualized review. During the moratorium, the IRS developed an automated “risk assessment model” to facilitate the processing of claims. This model, which is alternatively known as “risking,” utilizes taxpayer-submitted data and publicly available information to predict the likelihood that a taxpayer’s claim is valid or invalid. Claims deemed to be “high risk” by the system are excluded from review by an IRS employee and instead are designated for immediate disallowance. In August 2024, the IRS lifted its ERC processing moratorium and began issuing thousands of disallowance notices to taxpayers. Notwithstanding these actions, the number of pending ERC claims remained above one million as of November 2024.

THE COURT CHALLENGE TO THE IRS’S “RISKING” MODEL

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 7, 2025, the plaintiffs (the tax preparation firms) sought a court order compelling the IRS to, among other things, stop the use of “risking” and restore individualized employee review of ERC claims. The plaintiffs claimed to be injured by the “risking” model because they were unable to collect contingency fees from clients when claims were disallowed.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs pointed to having received on behalf of their clients many boilerplate rejections immediately following the end of the moratorium. The plaintiffs alleged that these summary disallowances were arbitrary and capricious, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the “risking” model precluded the IRS from acquiring information necessary to properly evaluate the claims.[1] The plaintiffs also contended that the disallowances reflected a shift in IRS policy to disfavor ERC, with the result being that several legitimate claims were being [...]

Continue Reading



read more

FedEx Defeats Government’s Loper Bright Gambit

by , , and | Mar 13, 2025 | , ,

On February 13, 2025, a Tennessee federal district court handed FedEx Corporation its second win in a refund action involving the application of foreign tax credits to what are known as “offset earnings.”[1] Offset earnings are earnings from a taxpayer’s profitable related foreign corporations that are offset by losses from other related foreign corporations. FedEx previously prevailed on the question of whether it was entitled to foreign tax credits related to such earnings.[2] In this most recent ruling, the court rejected the Government’s reliance on a certain regulatory provision called the “Regulatory Haircut Rule”[3] to argue that the amount of FedEx’s claimed refund should be reduced. The case now appears to be set for appeal.

Revisiting the analysis in its first ruling, the court explained the error of the Government’s reliance upon the Regulatory Haircut Rule. In short, the court said that the rule’s application conflicted with the best construction of the governing statutes, primarily Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 960, 965(b)(4), and 965(g). The Government defended its reliance by appealing to Loper Bright’s instruction that courts must respect legitimate delegations of authority to an agency.[4] Citing IRC Section 965(o), which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations “as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of” Section 965 and to “prevent the avoidance of the purposes” of this section, the Government argued that the Regulatory Haircut Rule furthered the IRC’s broader goal of preventing tax avoidance and that Loper Bright required the court to respect the Secretary’s exercise of his delegated authority.

While acknowledging that legitimate delegations of authority to agencies remain permissible after Loper Bright, the court reminded the Government that an agency does not have the power to regulate in a manner that is inconsistent with the statute, even when a delegation provision grants the agency broad discretionary authority:

Assuming that Congress delegated authority . . . to promulgate regulations implementing section 965 . . . that authority cannot, under Loper Bright, encompass the discretion to promulgate regulations that contravene the “single, best meaning” of section 965, as determined by the courts.[5]

In other words, a statute’s delegation provision should not be interpreted to allow Treasury to eliminate rules that Congress established in other parts of the IRC.

Practice Point: Referencing Loper Bright’s acknowledgment that Congress may “confer discretionary authority on agencies,”[6] the Government has defended (and likely will continue to defend) its regulations on the theory that its exercises of such authority should be respected. But as Loper Bright reminds us, courts have an independent duty to decide the meaning of statutory delegations. Thus, taxpayers should closely examine whether regulations purportedly derived from a statute’s delegation provision comport with the rest of the statute. Those that do not should be challenged.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] FedEx Corp. & Subs. v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-02794 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 13, 2025)(electronically available here).

[2] FedEx Corp. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Upcoming Webinar: Defeating IRS Penalties

by , and | Feb 25, 2025 | ,

The IRS has an extensive set of penalties that it can impose on both corporate and individual taxpayers, and recent audit trends indicate a growing tendency to apply multiple penalties. Join McDermott’s Tax Controversy & Litigation Group on March 5, 2025, for a webinar that will dive into the penalties the IRS may pursue and the strategies you can use to defend against them. Gain key insights into both the substantive and procedural aspects of IRS penalties, along with critical steps to safeguard your interests.

Discuss topics will include:
• Strategies for seeking abatement of IRS penalties and available defenses
• Preserving the attorney-client privilege during penalty cases
• Emerging trends in litigating penalty cases
• Understanding the IRS’s enforcement efforts relating to partnerships

Click here for details and to register.



read more

IRS Roundup January 20 – 31, 2025

by , , and | Feb 13, 2025 | , , , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the weeks of January 20, 2025 – January 24, 2025, and January 27, 2025 – January 31, 2025.

TAX-CONTROVERSY-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

January 22, 2025: The IRS reminded taxpayers that they have rights – outlined in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights – any time they interact with the IRS. These rights cover a wide range of topics and issues and lay out what taxpayers can expect when interacting with the IRS. Taxpayers should also know that the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is an independent organization within the IRS that helps taxpayers and protects their rights for free. TAS can help if assistance is needed to resolve an IRS problem, if a problem is causing financial difficulty, or if an IRS system or procedure isn’t working as it should.

January 24, 2025: Alarm Concepts Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against the IRS and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. after being notified that its tax data was stolen and leaked by Charles Littlejohn, a Booz Allen employee contracted to work at the IRS. Littlejohn pled guilty in October 2023 to unlawfully disclosing confidential tax returns and return information between 2018 and 2020. The breach appears to have affected tens of thousands of taxpayers.

The lawsuit alleges that the IRS failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures despite repeated warnings, and that Booz Allen neglected to protect the data. The stolen information includes sensitive details from Forms 1099 and Schedule K-1. The lawsuit highlights ongoing risks of identity theft and fraud for the affected taxpayers.

The lawsuit asserts that Alarm Concepts and class members are entitled to statutory damages of $1,000 for each unauthorized inspection or disclosure, as well as punitive damages because the disclosures were willful or the result of gross negligence.

January 30, 2025: The US Senate Committee on Finance released a bipartisan discussion draft of legislation aimed at improving IRS procedures and administration. The proposed bill, named the Taxpayer Assistance Service Act (TAS Act), seeks to enhance the taxpayer experience by facilitating better communication with the IRS, streamlining tax compliance and dispute processes, and ensuring timely expert assistance. Key provisions include improving “math error” notices, expanding US Tax Court jurisdiction, simplifying foreign bank account report compliance, and expanding access to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. The draft also aims to expand the independence of the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) from the IRS and strengthen the IRS whistleblower program while protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

The proposed bill reflects nonpartisan recommendations and seeks to address challenges faced by taxpayers within the current tax system. Proponents of the proposed bill include the current NTA Erin Collins and the long-serving former NTA Nina Olson. Olson described the TAS Act as a “sweeping piece of legislation that promises to improve federal tax administration and increase taxpayer protections.”

TAX RETURN FILING SEASON DEVELOPMENTS

January [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Supreme Court Overrules Chevron, Opening Door for New Tax Reg Challenges

by , , and | Jul 10, 2024 |

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States reshaped the federal tax landscape when it overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. The Chevron doctrine, a pillar of US administrative law for four decades, required courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute even where the court concluded that a different interpretation was better supported.

By ending the Chevron doctrine, Loper Bright has created new opportunities for taxpayers to challenge federal tax regulations. While taxpayers have long challenged federal tax regulations, Chevron’s deferential regime hampered many challenges to tax regulations because where there was statutory ambiguity or silence, courts generally deferred to agency interpretations. Loper Bright has evened the playing field between taxpayers and agencies because now both must convince courts that their interpretation of the statute is the best interpretation.

Read more here.



read more

Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case

by , and | Jun 21, 2024 | ,

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 opinion in Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. __ (2024), ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Moore concerned whether US Congress and the IRS could tax US shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) on those corporations’ earnings even though the earnings were not distributed to the shareholders. The case specifically focused on the so-called “mandatory repatriation tax” under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 965, a one-time tax on certain undistributed income of a CFC that is payable not by the CFC but by its US shareholders. Some viewed the case as hinging upon whether Congress has the power to tax economic gains that have not been “realized.” (i.e., In the case of a house whose value has appreciated from $500,000 to $600,000, the increased value is “realized” only when the house is sold and the additional $100,000 reaches the taxpayer’s coffers.)

However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected that position on the ground that the mandatory repatriation tax “does tax realized income,” albeit income realized by a CFC. On this basis, they reasoned that the question at issue was whether Congress has the power to attribute realized income of a CFC to (and tax) US shareholders on their respective shares of the undistributed income. This group of justices ultimately decided Congress does have the power.

The majority went out of its way to avoid expressing any opinion as to whether Congress can tax unrealized appreciation, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence and Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent asserting that it cannot. Perhaps the Court was signaling a distaste for the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax proposed by US President Joe Biden, which would impose a minimum 20% tax on the total income of the wealthiest American households, including both realized and unrealized amounts, among other Democratic proposals.

Practice Point: We previously noted that certain taxpayers should consider filing protective refund claims contingent on the possibility that Moore would be decided in favor of the taxpayers. In light of the case’s outcome, however, those protective claims are now moot.



read more

United States v. Eaton: IRS Summons Power Overrides EU Privacy Laws

by and | May 31, 2024 | , ,

A US federal district court judge recently endorsed the broad investigative powers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in United States v. Eaton Corp., No. 1:23-mc-00037, May 16, 2024 (N.D. Ohio). During its audit of Eaton’s transfer pricing of a royalty arrangement with Eaton’s Irish affiliate, the IRS sought performance evaluations of certain employees of the affiliate. Eaton declined to provide the evaluations citing relevancy and legal objections based on EU privacy laws. The IRS subsequently served Eaton with an administrative summons seeking the evaluations.

In the ensuing summons enforcement action, Eaton initially prevailed before a magistrate judge on both grounds. However, the IRS persuaded the district court judge to reject the magistrate’s recommendation and enforce the summons.

The district court judge rejected Eaton’s position that a heightened relevancy standard applies when the IRS seeks personal information, such as employee valuations. The judge distinguished between civil discovery disputes where such a standard might apply and summons enforcement disputes, which engage the broad authority of the IRS to seek information that may be relevant to its audit. While the IRS’s case for relevancy could have been stronger, the judge nonetheless found that the IRS had sufficiently supported the connection between potential information in the evaluations and its audit of the royalty arrangement.

The district court judge also ruled that the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) did not bar the IRS’s legitimate exercise of its audit powers. The judge acknowledged that the GDPR generally prohibits the transfer of personal information, such as employee valuations, outside of the EU. However, the judge also found that exceptions to that prohibition applied where the IRS properly requested the information as part of its audit function and the EU Member State (in this case Ireland) had entered into a treaty with the United States that addressed corporate cross-border relationships and sought generally to combat tax evasion by resident entities. Comity concerns did not prevent enforcement of the summons according to the judge.

Practice Point: Given the effort the IRS expended in this case to obtain marginally relevant information, we clearly see the effects of increased audit resources at work and of the IRS’s mandate to target large corporate taxpayers. While there are certainly instances in every audit where a taxpayer should not expend resources just to fight a battle, the difficulty in cases like this is that absent this decision, Eaton likely felt bound to adhere to the GDPR for the sake of the employees working for its Irish affiliate.



read more

Understanding the IRC’s Excessive Refund Claim Penalty

by , and | May 8, 2024 | , , ,

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been asserting the Internal Revenue Code Section 6676 penalty much more frequently in examinations and in court. For example, in 2023, a government counterclaim in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia sought to recover Section 6676 penalties in Townley v. United States. And, internal IRS guidance requires examiners to consider whether to assert the penalty in every case in which a refund is disallowed.

In light of these factors, and major questions being raised in high-profile tax cases like Moore v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, taxpayers are wondering whether the penalty can be asserted as a protective refund claim.

Read more here.



read more

IRS (Belatedly) Strikes Back Against FedEx in Ongoing Foreign Tax Credit Case

by | Mar 14, 2024 | ,

FedEx Corporation, previously the victor in a closely watched dispute regarding the government’s regulatory attempt to prevent taxpayers from claiming foreign tax credits on offset earnings (131 AFTR 2d 2023-1284 (W.D. Tenn. 2023)), recently filed a motion for judgment in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to confirm its resulting refund amount. FedEx says it filed the motion because the government ended negotiations for a joint proposal of judgment, told FedEx to file a motion and said it would oppose the motion based on a new argument that would reduce FedEx’s refund amount. The government did not provide a written description of its new argument, so FedEx forged ahead with what it could gather based on conversations with the government and filed its motion on March 8, 2024.

According to FedEx, the government’s new argument appears to rest on a different regulation (Treasury Regulation Section 1.965-5(c)(1)(i)), which limits foreign tax credits by withholding taxes paid to a foreign jurisdiction. This is known as the “Haircut Rule.” FedEx provides several reasons why the government’s argument based on the Haircut Rule should be rejected, including that the rule cannot apply where a taxpayer did not claim foreign tax credits based on withholding taxes, that the rule itself is procedurally deficient under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the government is simply too late in presenting the argument.

Practice Point: Given the late stage of the litigation, the government will likely face headwinds to get the court to consider its argument of whether the Haircut Rule applies. It is unclear from the motion how transparent the government was with the court while the parties attempted to reach a mutually agreeable refund computation. However, it appears fairly clear that the government could have argued the Haircut Rule as an alternative to its main position throughout the course of the 2023 briefing before the court. As with any argument newly conceived in the heat of litigation, parties should carefully consider the consequences of waiting to bring the argument to the court’s attention (with one of those consequences being that such new argument is rejected for dilatoriness).



read more

Tax Court Rules Limited Partners May Be Subject to Self-Employment Tax

by and | Dec 1, 2023 | ,

On November 28, 2023, the US Tax Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner and held that “limited partners” are defined functionally—not by state law—for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1402(a)(13), which excludes distributions to a “limited partner, as such” from self-employment tax.

Partners are generally required to include their distributive shares of partnership income in their net earnings from self-employment under IRC Sections 1402(a) and 702(a)(8). IRC Section 1402(a)(13), however, provides an exception. It excludes “the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than [certain] guaranteed payments” from self-employment tax. However, in the context of IRC Section 1402(a)(13), “limited partner” is not defined. The Tax Court previously held that “limited partners” are determined functionally (e.g., by what they actually do with respect to the partnership), not by their status or title under state law, in the context of a limited liability partnership. (See Renkemeyer v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 137 (2011).) Soroban argued that in the distinct context of a limited liability partnership, plain statutory meaning, legislative history, past guidance from the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS, and policy considerations all pointed to the same conclusion: “limited partner” for purposes of the self-employment tax must be determined by reference to state law.

The Tax Court disagreed. The Court fixed its attention on the phrase “limited partner, as such” and found that under the canon of construction against surplusage, the words “as such” demonstrate “that the limited partner exception applies only to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner.” To the extent legislative history or Soroban’s “myriad other arguments” suggest otherwise, they cannot “overcome the plain meaning of the statute.”

The Tax Court held that IRC Section 1402(a)(13) applies only to “passive investors” and excludes “earnings from a mere investment” only. Therefore, the Court “must examine the functions and roles of the limited partners in the partnership to determine whether their shares of earnings are excluded from net earnings from self-employment.” The Court concluded that it has jurisdiction to complete this task during partnership-level proceedings because the applicability of IRC Section 1402(a)(13) “is a partnership item” under Treasury Regulation § 301.6231(a)(3)-1.

Practice Point: The Court’s holding in Soroban will likely provide the IRS with additional incentive to audit taxpayers as part of the IRS’s Self-Employment Contributions Act compliance campaign, which the IRS placed on hold to see “what develops in” cases like Soroban. This issue has been hotly contested in the Tax Court, with several cases currently being litigated, including Denham Capital Management LP v. Commissioner, Docket. No. 9973-23, and Point72 Asset Management LP v. Commissioner, Docket. No. 12752-23. We will see whether the taxpayer in Soroban seeks review by an appellate court. In the meantime, if you have this issue, we advise consulting with your tax professional to ensure you are poised to [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2025 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery